ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, with your indulgence, I thank you for that and if possible can we proceed with the matter that was standing down before lunch? Thank you Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Right, we call the matter of De Meillon.
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, before we start, there's a household matter, there's a request from certain applicants' attorneys and even from certain applicants if you would allow people to remove their jackets in the circumstances, if there is no objection?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think I should consult with my colleague Advocate Gcabashe in that regard, she will have the final word.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: No I see she's got no objection. In that case we are overruled and the majority of the panel has got no objection, gentlemen, if you want to make yourselves more comfortable.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?
MR PRINSLOO: That concludes the evidence of the applicant and I will attend to obtain the application form for his membership and once I have done so, I will hand it in for your perusal. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Mr Kotze?
MR KOTZE: Thank you Chairperson, I think we might have some problems with the microphone.
CHAIRPERSON: Might I request then that you move it ever so slightly? Are you comfortable where you are seated, Mr Kotze, you are seated right on the edge of the table, would you like a little bit more room?
Very well, would you like to discuss the matter of Mr Holder?
MR KOTZE: As it pleases you Chairperson, I call Mr Holder.
EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR KOTZE: Thank you. Mr Holder is it correct that you are a 37 year old electro-mechanic and that you are the applicant in this matter?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Is it correct that you are married and that you have two children who are currently respectively 15 and 13 years old?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Is it also correct that on the 5th November 1996 you were found guilty on charges of robbery with aggravating circumstances and murder and for each of these charges you were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment to be served concurrently?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: And this emanated from an incident which occurred on 23 April 1994?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Have you had any prior convictions except this particular one?
MR HOLDER: No.
MR KOTZE: Mr Holder, if we could just begin with your background? In which environment did you grow up? Where did you undergo your education?
MR HOLDER: In Krugersdorp, primary and high school.
MR KOTZE: And after you passed matric is it correct that during 1979 and 1980 you performed your military service?
MR HOLDER: Yes that's correct in Ladysmith at 5 Infantry Battalion.
MR KOTZE: Did you follow any advanced courses there?
MR HOLDER: An officers course.
MR KOTZE: Did you achieve a rank?
MR HOLDER: Yes, that of corporal.
MR KOTZE: And as part of your military service and your obligations thereof, you performed duties in Namibia?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: For how long were you on the border?
MR HOLDER: Approximately one year.
MR KOTZE: And during this border duty, were you involved in any contact?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, two incidents of contact.
MR KOTZE: And were any of your friends injured during this military contact?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Did you lose any members of your family as a result of the border war?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, my cousin Reino.
MR KOTZE: And was there anything specific about his passing?
MR HOLDER: He was one of the last who died during border duty and that was during the operation when they withdrew the land from Namibia.
MR KOTZE: And during your military training and border duty were any discussions ever held with you in order to motivate your presence on the Namibian border?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Could you briefly expand regarding this motivation and these discussions?
MR HOLDER: Discussions about the border focused on communism and the fight against communism, they indoctrinated us extensively against communism and the ANC in it's entirety.
MR KOTZE: At that stage was the ANC also regarded by the army as an enemy?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: And this threat of communism, if you could just expand of that? What would that threat involve in general for you?
MR HOLDER: For me it would have meant that free religion would no longer have existed, that the free market economy would have collapsed and that everything that we believed in and everything that we had been taught would have been destroyed.
MR KOTZE: Until the point of your border duty, what were your political orientations, for which political party did you vote?
MR HOLDER: I think if one is young one votes for the party which your parents voted for, therefore I would have voted for the National Party.
MR KOTZE: And the policy of the National Party at that stage was one of separate development, how did you feel about that?
MR HOLDER: At that stage I felt it was entirely correct and acceptable that we should develop separately with regard to schooling, churches and with regard to our countries in their entirety.
MR KOTZE: And were these impressions made to you at school level?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: After you completed your apprenticeship, you then in 1983 joined the Secunda Town Council as an electro-technician?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: And from 1984 you were in service at the Secunda Mine in the same capacity?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: And in the meantime you were married and you had these two children?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Did your political affiliations change at any stage?
MR HOLDER: Since 1993 my political affiliations have changed.
MR KOTZE: And what was the reason for that?
MR HOLDER: The environment in which I lived was overwhelmingly occupied by Conservative Party members and all of them were predominantly right-wing.
MR KOTZE: And with the withdrawal of the South African forces from Namibia what was your view then?
MR HOLDER: I felt that all the troops who had died on the border had died unnecessarily, that they had been shot unnecessarily because we had lost the land that we had protected with our lives.
MR KOTZE: And at that stage then did you begin to believe that the National Party did not keep it's promises?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: And then at a stage you joined the AWB?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: When was that?
MR HOLDER: That was December 1993.
MR KOTZE: And for which reason did you join this organisation?
MR HOLDER: I thought that with the assistance of the AWB or by means of the AWB we would have some form of political influence on the elections which were coming and the outcomes of these elections.
MR KOTZE: And what was your feeling when you heard that President Mandela was to be released?
MR HOLDER: First I was shocked because I felt that he was one of the leading figures of the then enemy and this had been indoctrinated in our minds by the army, I felt that he was part of the enemy of the day.
MR KOTZE: In Secunda, which is overwhelmingly a white mining community?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: And you said that it was predominantly occupied by conservative membership and thoughts?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: Were any political meeting held between December 1993 up to the elections of April 1994?
MR HOLDER: From an AWB perspective meetings were held and attended approximately every week as well as Conservative Party meetings.
MR KOTZE: How regularly were these AWB meetings held in Secunda?
MR HOLDER: Once a week.
MR KOTZE: And if you could just expand on the stature of the speakers, were they lower level speakers or high level right-wing politicians?
MR HOLDER: High level right-wing politicians.
MR KOTZE: And what was the broader range of these meetings which you attended?
MR HOLDER: Most of the time it was that the National Party at that time was busy selling our country out as it had done with the then South West Africa and for us as whites there could be no sovereignty or own piece of land or territory.
MR KOTZE: And this message, did you only hear it from AWB leaders or also from the Freedom Front and Conservative Party speakers?
MR HOLDER: From the Freedom Front as well as Conservative Party speakers.
MR KOTZE: And this message, did you believe it?
MR HOLDER: Yes I believed it.
MR KOTZE: With regard to AWB meetings, could you briefly indicate whether they were public gatherings or gatherings for members only?
MR HOLDER: The meetings began as open gatherings which could be attended by anyone and after the public gatherings there were closed meetings only for AWB members and supporters.
MR KOTZE: These public gatherings, let us accept that non-AWB members also attended these meetings from time to time?
MR HOLDER: Well it depended from meeting to meeting, it could have been a hundred people or more.
MR KOTZE: Were you under the impression that the right-wing politics were firmly established in the environment in which you lived and worked?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is how it appeared to me.
MR KOTZE: Could you briefly focus on the atmosphere before the elections took place on 27 April 1994?
MR HOLDER: I think the atmosphere before the elections was one of insecurity, we were all very uncertain of what would happen to us after the elections and that is why we attempted to politically ensure that there would also be something left over for us at the end of the day, a sovereign Volkstaat where we could maintain our norms.
MR KOTZE: Did you believe or what did you believe would happen on the election day?
MR HOLDER: I believed that we were on the bring of a civil war and I think that many other AWB and right-wingers believed this.
MR KOTZE: On local government level, were any notices given out amongst the public in Secunda regarding what could be expected with regard to the election?
MR HOLDER: We received notification of those things which we would need during a civil war and we all believed and we still believe that this came from the local town council.
MR KOTZE: This document to which you refer, is this the document which appears from page 57 to page 59 of the bundle?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: At that stage when it's mentioned, the aspect of fleeing, you and your family must flee, there is no time to pack, did you believe that this evaluation was not correct and I'm referring to page 59, the introduction?
MR HOLDER: Chairperson, I believed that on the day of the election there would be no time for packing, we would have to leave our things and flee.
MR KOTZE: After a number of guidelines are provided, the writer ends off with "May God help and protect us". Did you have any reason to believe that this, which appears to me to be a very earnest and serious plea for protection was ungrounded?
MR HOLDER: No.
MR KOTZE: During these AWB meetings or gatherings, was any indication given regarding how the AWB wanted to organise itself in the event of problems which may originate?
MR HOLDER: Chairperson, we had safe houses, as we called it, where we would have taken our wives and children in such an event and where we as the men would protect them.
MR KOTZE: And when was it believed that this event would take place?
MR HOLDER: We believed that this would take place on election day.
MR KOTZE: So the idea of the safe houses was that women and children would gather there and that some of the men would then protect them?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Which weapons did you and the other members of the AWB have available to you to carry out these duties?
MR HOLDER: Most of us had handguns.
MR KOTZE: And which weapons did you believe were in the possession of the enemy of that time?
MR HOLDER: Semi-automatic combat weapons.
MR KOTZE: And did you believe that the weapons at your disposal would have been effective against the power which you believed existed?
MR HOLDER: No.
MR KOTZE: If you could briefly sketch the then structure of the AWB as it existed in Secunda, were there any ranks and who occupied these ranks?
MR HOLDER: Well our chief commandant for the region was Commandant Boshoff, then there were two other commandants below him. Our commandant was Ochert van Schalkwyk and below him was Lieutenant Flip Marais and then it was me and my fellow applicant Mr van Zyl.
MR KOTZE: Did you occupy any rank in the AWB?
MR HOLDER: No.
MR KOTZE: The ranks which you have mentioned sound like military ranks, could you indicate upon which basis this rank structure functioned within the AWB?
MR HOLDER: As far as I know it was very similar to that of the South African Defence Force.
MR KOTZE: The organisation as such, was it simply a social gathering of people who shared the same political objectives or was there a method according to which military methods would be used in the AWB?
MR HOLDER: We addressed our seniors according to various ranks and saluted them as one would do in the defence force.
MR KOTZE: And if there had been requests which were issued did you regard it as a request or something stronger.
MR HOLDER: I regarded it as an order.
MR KOTZE: Was at any stage a discussion held regarding the obtaining of automatic rifles to protect the safe houses?
MR HOLDER: Yes.
MR KOTZE: When did this happen? If you could just sketch the circumstances briefly?
MR HOLDER: It was approximately two weeks before the incident during which the victim died.
MR KOTZE: And who did you talk to at that stage?
MR HOLDER: I was attending a meeting at Mr van Schalkwyk's house, he spoke to us and there were other members present there.
MR KOTZE: And you and Mr van Zyl were friends, both personally and professionally?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: And he was also a member of the AWB at that stage?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Who ultimately introduced you to Mr de Meillon?
MR HOLDER: Mr van Schalkwyk.
MR KOTZE: And you said this took place two weeks before the election?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: In which capacity was Mr de Meillon introduced to you?
MR HOLDER: He was introduced to me as a commandant of the BWB.
MR KOTZE: Was any indication given regarding his loyalty towards the Boer cause and any other such issues?
MR HOLDER: Mr van Schalkwyk told us that De Meillon was very trustworthy and loyal to his cause.
MR KOTZE: And were any instructions given to you regarding assistance that you should give to him and the BWB?
MR HOLDER: Mr van Schalkwyk told us at this stage that there would be opportunities and times during which the AWB and the BWB would have to co-operate.
MR KOTZE: Now the BWB, at that stage did it have any kind of familiarity in Secunda? Did you know what they stood for and what they were planning?
MR HOLDER: I simply knew that they were also a right-wing organisation. However, I wasn't entirely certain for what they stood and what they were doing.
MR KOTZE: But it was clear to you that they would attempt to influence right-wing politics?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Did you then undertake any exercises with the BWB members?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: Can you expand on that briefly?
MR HOLDER: We had drills with vehicles and obstacles as well as night watches.
MR KOTZE: And who was involved in these night shooting and obstacle courses?
MR HOLDER: Various AWB and BWB members.
MR KOTZE: And was the emphasis on the idea that there would be an attack on a vehicle and you would have to know how to protect these vehicles?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Did you at that stage believe that the threat of an attack on a convoy of vehicles was a real danger?
MR HOLDER: Yes I believed it.
MR KOTZE: With regard to the 23rd April 1994, that was the Saturday before the election, how did it transpire that you an Mr de Meillon and Mr van Zyl departed?
MR HOLDER: I was not at my house, I was at Mr van Zyl's house, my fellow applicant, and we were visiting there when Mr van Schalkwyk and Mr de Meillon arrived there. Mr van Schalkwyk told me that Mr de Meillon and the others knew where they would be able to get semi-automatic weapons for the safe houses and as I understood it, there was an arsenal of weapons which was illegally possessed and that the guards were usually drunk and that it would be rather easy to obtain these weapons, that we were to go with Mr de Meillon. I went to fetch Mr van Zyl and informed him of the situation and we departed with Mr de Meillon.
MR KOTZE: Did you know exactly what your destination would be?
MR HOLDER: Mr van Schalkwyk told us that the destination was a place in Pretoria which was being observed by the BWB and that they knew what was going on there.
ADV GCABASHE: Could I interrupt? Sorry. When Mr van Schalkwyk said Mr de Meillon knew where to find semi-automatic rifles, was this said in the presence of Mr de Meillon?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: He was there?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: Did you then arm yourself for this operation?
MR HOLDER: I didn't specifically arm myself, it was general AWB policy that at all times, in and outside town, we would carry firearms with us.
MR KOTZE: Did you then take a .38 revolver with you?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: And Mr van Zyl took a single barrel shotgun?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: And then you went with Mr van Zyl's vehicle in the direction of Pretoria?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: In Pretoria, how did it come that let's call it the first target was pointed out?
MR HOLDER: Well I don't know Pretoria well and I don't know how the city's set up is, what the street layout is like and Mr de Meillon asked Mr van Zyl to go to, what's the street name, Vermeulen Street and we trailed up Vermeulen Street, we stopped next to the building there which is the military headquarters. There were guards there and he wanted us to take away these guards' firearms from them and I asked him whether he was off his rocker when he wanted us to take away their firearms, I meant that I wouldn't do it and it was open, in the public, there were many people passing by, I was not prepared to get involved in a thing like that.
MR KOTZE: And how long did you spend in Pretoria before this planning was terminated?
MR HOLDER: Well I didn't take notice of the time but it wasn't very long Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: Were any proposals made that the action would have to achieve propaganda value?
MR HOLDER: Yes, Mr de Meillon said so.
MR KOTZE: What was the idea?
MR HOLDER: That if we were to attack these guards and rob them of their firearms it would have propaganda value because we could say that the BWB had committed this and this would give us some influence.
MR KOTZE: Given the danger, would you prepared to try and obtain or achieve this propaganda value?
MR HOLDER: No Sir.
MR KOTZE: In the end then you departed from Pretoria?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, we returned to Secunda.
MR KOTZE: And what happened on the way to Secunda?
MR HOLDER: Just after passing Delmas we stopped next to the road and Mr de Meillon said to us that we had to go via Devon because that was one of the targets that they had observed, that they had attended military camps in the past and he knew exactly what was going on in the bases and that we had to just stop there, when we passed there.
MR KOTZE: You heard his testimony today that he had only on a few occasions in Pretoria driven past the building and that it had been quite some time since he'd last been in Devon. If it had been stated to you in those circumstances would you have been prepared to participate in this operation?
MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: Then in Devon, did Mr van Zyl remain behind in the vehicle?
MR HOLDER: Yes Sir.
MR KOTZE: What did Mr de Meillon tell you was the purpose of this visit to the base?
MR HOLDER: Well Mr de Meillon said we had to pass there, go and see how many guards there were, what arms we could get there.
MR KOTZE: Were you prepared to go along with that?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR KOTZE: You and Mr de Meillon then put on your military browns?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: And you also pulled a vest over your head?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: What was the purpose behind that?
MR HOLDER: Chairperson, if you had undergone military training you would know that your skin is white and it would reflect very easily at night and that was simply to disguise my complexion.
MR KOTZE: So you believed that this would make you less obtrusive at night while you were reconnoitring this place?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Was it indicated to you at any stage that the plan was that people were going to be shot or specifically the guards were going to be shot?
MR HOLDER: No.
MR KOTZE: If that had been disclosed to you what would your action have been?
MR HOLDER: I would not have gone along with the action.
MR KOTZE: And ultimately you arrived at the guardhouse. At that stage who according to you occupied that base?
MR HOLDER: I believed that is was an airforce base according to what Mr de Meillon said.
MR KOTZE: And when you arrived at the guardhouse, what did you believe would transpire there?
MR HOLDER: I believed that we would take a look to see how many guards there were, so see if there were guards on the grounds and so forth.
MR KOTZE: And then depending upon whether or not they were there and whether or not they were awake, what would have happened?
MR HOLDER: I thought that we would have reconnoitred an arsenal which was familiar to Mr de Meillon perhaps for later action or if the opportunity presented itself and there was minimal risk, we would have stolen the weapons ourselves.
MR KOTZE: The events occurring in the guardhouse, could you sketch this to the Committee and could we just indicate to you Chairperson that the events as they appear in paragraph 18 of the application, it has appeared after consulting with the applicants on Monday that there are certain discrepancies. Would you like me to make a proposition to you regarding what their testimony would be or could I just guide the witness through this?
CHAIRPERSON: Is that with regard to paragraph 18 on page 25 of the record?
MR KOTZE: Yes, page 25 carrying on on page 26 of the record. CHAIRPERSON: I think lead him through this and if there are really radical differences then you have to deal with those.
MR KOTZE: Mr Chair I would just like to point out that when my turn arrived, the first applicant had already testified and very little could be done about that. But could you please explain in your own words what had happened in the guardhouse?
MR HOLDER: Well I stood at the window and as Mr de Meillon had said, he passed below the window and stood at the door. I look in through the window and saw that Mr de Meillon entered.
ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, can you slow down, you're going to fast? So you looked through the window and he definitely did not, you observed that?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, he passed under the window. Then Mr de Meillon stood at the door, I look through the window, I saw he entered, I immediately followed him, I entered the guardhouse, Mr de Meillon and the deceased became involved in a struggle. I approached Mr Swart and I saw that he was drawing his firearm. I grabbed him by the shoulder and the elbow. I heard a shot go off, then I pushed Mr Swart out of the way and I ran.
MR KOTZE: Did the lights in the guardhouse go out at any stage?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, the lights did go out.
MR KOTZE: What caused it according to your impressions?
MR HOLDER: I don't have an idea, Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: And at what stage of the incident did the lights go out?
MR HOLDER: Well it was during the struggle between Mr de Meillon and the deceased.
MR KOTZE: How many shots did you hear in that guardhouse?
MR HOLDER: I heard one shot.
MR KOTZE: Could you perhaps give us an indication of the size of this guardhouse where this whole incident took place?
MR HOLDER: Well I would guess about four by four but I could be wrong.
MR KOTZE: After hearing the shot, what happened?
MR HOLDER: Well I ran out the guardhouse to the motor car where Mr van Zyl was working.
MR KOTZE: In the guardhouse did you pick up Mr Terblanche or Constable Terblanche's firearm?
MR HOLDER: No I didn't.
MR KOTZE: Was any attempt made to search or look for further firearms?
MR HOLDER: No we didn't.
MR KOTZE: Then you ran to the motor car and Mr de Meillon joined you there?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: When did you become aware that a firearm had been removed from the guardhouse to your waiting car?
MR HOLDER: Well only after the car had departed or pulled away.
MR KOTZE: Who made an announcement in this regard?
MR HOLDER: Mr de Meillon.
MR KOTZE: Did he also at that stage have the firearm pistol in his possession?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: Mr de Meillon also had a wound in his forearm?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair, he informed us that he had been shot.
MR KOTZE: Would you know who had shot him?
MR HOLDER: I don't have an idea.
MR KOTZE: The moment the shot had been fired would you say you were in a position to make a dependable observation about what had happened?
MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair, I was too afraid, I was scared and I ran away.
MR KOTZE: Okay, I would like you to focus on that very moment when the shot was fired which apparently had killed Mr Terblanche. Could you tell whether the firearm had been pointed at him, whether it had gone off in the struggle, what were your personal impressions?
MR HOLDER: My personal impression was that a shot had gone off while they were struggling.
MR KOTZE: Did you fire any shots in the guardhouse?
MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: When you were in the motor car did you remark anything towards Mr - did Mr de Meillon remark anything with regard to the shooting incident there to any of you?
MR HOLDER: Yes he made the observation afterwards to me and Mr van Zyl that he thought the guard had been shot.
MR KOTZE: You then went to Secunda, was Mr de Meillon in the motor car throughout that period?
MR HOLDER: Yes we departed from Devon to Secunda.
MR KOTZE: And then at Secunda you dropped him off?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: Was there any arrangement regarding the reporting of this incident to your structure of command?
MR HOLDER: After we had dropped off Mr de Meillon we went to Mr Gerhard van Schalkwyk's house. When we stopped in his yard he was already waiting for us and he told us that Mr de Meillon was already there, we had to return home, he would contact Mr van Schalkwyk.
MR KOTZE: That was Mr van Rensburg's house where you stopped?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Did you at that stage know Mr Gerhard van Rensburg?
MR HOLDER: Yes I had only met him on the same occasion as Mr de Meillon.
MR KOTZE: Was he introduced to you by a rank?
MR HOLDER: Yes he was introduced as a general of the BWB.
MR KOTZE: During these night shooting and convoy protection operations and exercises, was Mr van Rensburg also there?
MR HOLDER: Yes he was in command.
MR KOTZE: What was the arrangement during the course of such an operation? Who would be in command?
MR HOLDER: Are you talking about the exercises?
MR KOTZE: Well we are referring to AWB/BWB co-operation, who would be in command?
MR HOLDER: I take it it would be the person with the highest rank.
MR KOTZE: During this whole incident did you take any initiative in carrying out the operation?
MR HOLDER: No, Sir.
MR KOTZE: Who would you say was in command?
MR HOLDER: Mr de Meillon I would say, Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: Do I understand correctly that although you had only seen him once he was then introduced to you and an announcement was made regarding his dependability and loyalty, you were prepared to undertake this kind of action with him?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: Why did you act in such a manner?
MR HOLDER: I believe it was out of fear for what we believed was going to happen and also to obtain the firearms to protect our wives and children.
MR KOTZE: You were then arrested and accused of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: You were initially charged together with Mr de Meillon?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: And then a division of trials took place?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: Testimony had been led regarding a .38 special bullet or projectile which had been found in the guardhouse?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: What is your knowledge of this?
MR HOLDER: It was news for me to hear about it here.
MR KOTZE: And during the first trial, the joint trial where Mr de Meillon appeared, was there any reference to a .38 revolver bullet?
MR HOLDER: The attorney came to me with a little bag with a bullet in it and he told me that the bullet was from my firearm. I pointed out to him that it was a bullet from a 9 mm pistol not from a .38. Mr de Meillon's attorney from Bloemfontein was also present. They took a lunch break and after that Mr de Meillon pleaded guilty and the two trials were divided in separate trials.
MR KOTZE: During your own trial in Springs were any allegations made that firstly you had shot and killed Mr Terblanche?
MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: Were there any allegations that you had fired a shot in the guardroom?
MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: Mr Holder if you have to look at the matter objectively, how do you feel about that action on the 23rd April 1994?
MR HOLDER: Well if I think back now, I feel that it is something that I will have to carry with me for the rest of my life, this feeling of self-loathing and I can't measure that against the heartache of the parents of the deceased and his family and never again would I like to become involved in something like this again.
MR KOTZE: Would you say that these events of the 23rd April took place according to plan or would you say that unforeseen things had happened?
MR HOLDER: I would say it was totally unforeseen what had happened.
MR KOTZE: And as far as Mr de Meillon is concerned, what are your present impressions regarding him as a person and his judgement?
MR HOLDER: Then I think he was fanatical, Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: But on the night of the action did you at that stage, were you in a position to form this impression?
MR HOLDER: Well I think after that I thought he was really a bit off his rocker and that he had acted impulsively Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: Did you at any stage meet Mr Terblanche's parents or family?
MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair, they were just in court the day Mr de Meillon pleaded guilty, it was the only time that I saw them and when we adjourned and after lunch when the judge separated the two trials, we returned home and they remained behind in court.
MR KOTZE: As far as the crime itself is concerned, do you accept that you were party to the murder and the robbery with aggravating circumstances?
MR HOLDER: Yes I accept the court's finding.
MR KOTZE: How do you feel about the crimes you had been involved in and committed?
MR HOLDER: Well I'm very sorry that I had participated in something which had led to the tragic death of such a young man and I can only express my sorrow and the fact that I feel remorse towards his family and his parents.
MR KOTZE: As far as your right-wing affiliations are concerned, are you still a member of the AWB?
MR HOLDER: I have given up all my ties with the AWB and all other right-wing organisations shortly after this event.
MR KOTZE: As you had stated you are a qualified electro-technician?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: Were any indications given to you regarding work that would wait for you were you to be granted amnesty?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: Could you give us more particulars?
MR HOLDER: Well many of the rental contractors could provide me with work at any time.
MR KOTZE: Should amnesty be granted, do you plan to become involved in crime at all in future?
MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOTZE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kotze. Mr Prinsloo any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Holder, 1993 October, were you already a member of the AWB?
MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair, December I became a member.
MR PRINSLOO: Were you aware of meeting held by the AWB in Klerksdorp where there were big congregations of people, where many people met inter alia leaders of the AWB and stated ultimatums to the Government?
MR HOLDER: Yes I'm aware of many meetings arranged by the AWB before I joined.
MR PRINSLOO: Are you aware of the meeting at the Trim Park in Potchefstroom in April 1994, beginning of April where war talk was made and where people were called upon and where a Volkstaat’s borders would be sketched out?
MR HOLDER: I saw that on television Mr Chair.
MR PRINSLOO: Are you also aware of a variety of bomb explosions which preceded the elections? I'm not referring to Johannesburg, explosions to the Sunday onwards to election day but before that time in the Free State in the Western Transvaal, are you aware of those?
MR HOLDER: No I haven't heard of those.
MR PRINSLOO: So you didn't but you are aware of the fact that the AWB had propagated country wide to oppose the elections?
MR HOLDER: Yes I'm aware of that Mr Chair.
MR PRINSLOO: And country wide, people would be protected and a Volkstaat and a Volkstaat would be formed and then violence would be committed?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, Mr Chair.
MR PRINSLOO: You testified that with regard to illegal firearms, that's the word that you used?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Now where would you have fetched illegal firearms?
MR HOLDER: I was given to understand by Mr Schalkwyk that people had firearms that were not registered in their name which were illegal as the word indicates, that they would be using during the time that the civil war would break out.
MR PRINSLOO: Those arms would then be taken physically from these people who were in illegal possession of them?
MR HOLDER: Yes that's correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Would that take place in Pretoria?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, Mr Chair.
MR PRINSLOO: In Vermeulen Street?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is what Mr de Meillon pointed out to us at this building.
MR PRINSLOO: But these illegal weapons that was referred to was in the words of Mr van Schalkwyk, he had told you about that?
MR HOLDER: Yes, Mr van Schalkwyk said we were under the command of Mr de Meillon, they had observed the whole matter and they had investigated it fully.
MR PRINSLOO: Just to get clarity Mr Holder, it is your testimony that Mr van Schalkwyk was as a matter of fact the commander and he told you, which had nothing to do with Mr de Meillon, that you would have to confiscate or take over by violent means firearms in illegal possession of people, is that what you said?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is what I said.
MR PRINSLOO: So you are not attributing it to Mr de Meillon?
MR HOLDER: We were under his instructions.
MR PRINSLOO: No, no you don't understand the question clearly, this is what Mr van Schalkwyk told you, not Mr de Meillon?
MR HOLDER: Mr de Meillon hadn't stated anything to me, Mr Chair.
MR PRINSLOO: Good, according to your statement in paragraph 15 you furthermore state and that's on page 24 that he had reconnoitred the set up and knew where automatic arms could be obtained.
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: So you were satisfied on that day you were just going to collect the firearms whether by violent means or not and that the necessary reconnoitring had already been done?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.
ADV GCABASHE: May I come in, excuse me Mr Prinsloo, can I again ascertain, when Mr van Schalkwyk said these things through that there were weapons to be found at Vermeulen Street, these were illegal weapons, this was in the presence of Mr de Meillon?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: This whole conversation he heard?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: But he said nothing at all?
MR HOLDER: No, Mr de Meillon didn't participate in that discussion.
ADV GCABASHE: And all the way to Pretoria he did not say to you what Van Schalkwyk said is not the position, he didn't contradict Van Schalkwyk at all?
MR HOLDER: No he didn't.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Holder, just to further investigate this question which the Honourable Advocate Gcabashe had raised, is it now your testimony that Mr van Schalkwyk had said that the firearms were to be obtained in Vermeulen Street?
MR HOLDER: No, Mr van Schalkwyk had said that Mr de Meillon had observed various places where we could obtain firearms, we had to go with Mr de Meillon and then thus in that manner find or get the weapons.
MR PRINSLOO: So Mr van Schalkwyk hadn't said to you that they were in Vermeulen Street?
MR HOLDER: No, Mr De Meillon took us there.
MR PRINSLOO: No, the question is, Mr van Schalkwyk never mentioned a specific place where the arms could be found?
MR HOLDER: No he didn't Mr Chair.
MR PRINSLOO: So you answered very quickly and said Mr de Meillon had heard everything, are you saying this out of conviction or did Mr van Schalkwyk who was a member of the AWB or Mr de Meillon who was not enter into a discussion there?
MR HOLDER: No I say that with conviction Mr Chair.
MR PRINSLOO: Well Mr de Meillon will deny that it had ever been said to him that firearms would be collected in Vermeulen Street.
MR HOLDER: Mr de Meillon said there were firearms in Pretoria and when we went there he said it was in Vermeulen Street.
MR PRINSLOO: But that was only raised when you were travelling there, not what Mr van Schalkwyk had said?
MR HOLDER: No Mr van Schalkwyk just said Mr de Meillon had observed a variety of places where we could find firearms.
MR PRINSLOO: You also replied to a question of the Honourable Advocate Gcabashe that it was semi-automatic weapons?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you know what a semi-automatic weapon is?
MR HOLDER: I had used the wrong term, it was automatic weapons.
MR PRINSLOO: And those automatic weapons which you would go and collect there, you would take by violent means if necessary?
MR HOLDER: According to what they had told me, Mr van Schalkwyk in the presence of Mr de Meillon, these guards were normally drunk or these people who were in possession of these firearms and it would therefore be reasonably easy to take these weapons.
MR PRINSLOO: So you were given to understand that they would be in possession of these people, that you would take it from their person?
MR HOLDER: No, I thought it was a place, a stand, a house where people lived and where these firearms were on those premises.
MR PRINSLOO: But there would be people who would be guarding them?
MR HOLDER: Yes there would be people present.
MR PRINSLOO: And they would be armed?
MR HOLDER: He didn't tell us that they would be armed.
MR PRINSLOO: Were you in the defence force Mr Holder?
MR HOLDER: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you know of any place where arms weren't protected by armed guards?
MR HOLDER: In my opinion, I wouldn't protect firearms that I had illegally hidden away.
MR PRINSLOO: Now where did you expect illegal arms to be found in Vermeulen Street?
MR HOLDER: Well as I'd stated, I don't know Pretoria. We travelled to Pretoria, when we entered Pretoria, Mr de Meillon said we must drive up Vermeulen Street and he pointed out this building to us.
MR PRINSLOO: As I understand your testimony, you stated that Mr de Meillon had said that the arms had to be taken away from the guards and that this would have propaganda value for the BWB or the right-wing?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: So by some or other means the guards would be robbed of the firearms?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: So it was his testimony that it would be taken from these people?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: So his testimony was never that they would remove firearms from a safe?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you have any equipment to remove firearms from a safe, like an ...(indistinct) torch or anything like that?
MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.
MR PRINSLOO: So you knew that it would be taken from persons?
MR HOLDER: No I didn't, I thought it was a place where firearms were hidden away.
MR PRINSLOO: And if those people were to resist, you had a firearm to defend yourself?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.
MR PRINSLOO: Or to carry out the plan?
MR HOLDER: I would have defended myself had I been attacked.
MR PRINSLOO: And you would also be able to carry your planning to effect by using that firearm to obtain those weapons?
MR HOLDER: Well if it had been my purpose to cold-bloodedly attack people would I have done that at the building in Vermeulen Street which Mr de Meillon wished to attack.
MR PRINSLOO: That's not the question, if the person were to resist or would refuse to hand over his weapon, would you use violence?
MR HOLDER: No, Mr Chair, I wouldn't try to take a firearm from any person.
MR PRINSLOO: When you arrived in Devon with Mr de Meillon, you went with Mr de Meillon, you got over the fence to the place where the act was committed?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.
MR PRINSLOO: And when you entered that place did you see if there were people inside?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: What did you think then?
MR HOLDER: At that stage I didn't think anything. I thought nothing of it.
MR PRINSLOO: What do you mean you didn't think about it, you had a balaclava over your head and so did Mr de Meillon, you were both armed, you walked into a place which you know as a military institution, you walk into the place where the guards are sitting, what did you think was going to happen now? Why were you entering there?
MR HOLDER: Well I knew there were problems awaiting but after I had seen what had happened in Pretoria I tried to convince myself of a way to stop this whole thing but it was too late when we entered there.
MR PRINSLOO: So your testimony is that according to Van Schalkwyk, De Meillon had already done reconnoitring?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.
MR PRINSLOO: So when he went in there was no reason for any reconnoitring because that had already been done according to your own testimony?
MR HOLDER: Well Mr de Meillon told me and Mr van Zyl that we were just going to see what was going on there.
MR PRINSLOO: But your testimony was that reconnoitring had already been done, that's your testimony?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And now he enters a place where there are guards sitting?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: So I propose to you that Mr de Meillon's version means that guards would be robbed of firearms?
MR HOLDER: That is not what we were doing in Devon, Sir.
MR PRINSLOO: But you testified and I wish to state to you that Mr de Meillon was a person who had been trained in Devon, so he would certainly know where the arms safe would be, it wasn't necessary to go and search for arms because he would know where the were. Do you agree with that?
MR HOLDER: Yes, that's what he said.
MR PRINSLOO: So there was no reason for any reconnoitring in that regard. So when he entered that room where the guards were sitting, with reference to what he had said in Pretoria that the guards would be robbed of their firearms, did you assume that would happen there in Devon?
MR HOLDER: Yes when we went in there I assumed that is what would happen.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you agree with that?
MR HOLDER: No I didn't.
MR PRINSLOO: What were you trying to do?
MR HOLDER: I thought that perhaps I would stop the situation.
MR PRINSLOO: What were you going to do?
MR HOLDER: Well perhaps to stop Mr de Meillon possibly just be guilty of attempted robbery rather than a murder or something like that.
MR PRINSLOO: So did you do anything to stop Mr de Meillon?
MR HOLDER: No, when I went in it was already going on.
MR PRINSLOO: He said to them that they shouldn't be Rambos?
MR HOLDER: No.
MR PRINSLOO: He said to them they shouldn't be stupid?
MR HOLDER: Yes, he said to them they shouldn't commit stupid things.
MR PRINSLOO: And then?
MR HOLDER: He and Mr Terblanche, one of the constables, were in a struggle, I moved behind them towards Mr Swart. Mr Swart was pulling his firearm and I grabbed him by the arm and by the shoulder. A shot went off, I pushed Mr Swart away and I ran away.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you walk past De Meillon?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage was there no struggle between De Meillon and the deceased?
MR HOLDER: No when I went passed Mr de Meillon, Mr Terblanche jumped up and they got involved in a struggle.
MR PRINSLOO: After you had passed?
MR HOLDER: No, while I was passing.
MR PRINSLOO: So you were on your way to Swart?
MR HOLDER: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Why were you walking towards Swart?
MR HOLDER: I saw him drawing his pistol.
MR PRINSLOO: What did you want to do?
MR HOLDER: I wanted to stop him.
MR PRINSLOO: Stop him from doing what?
MR HOLDER: From shooting me.
MR PRINSLOO: But why would he shoot you?
MR HOLDER: Because we came into a place where we were not supposed to be.
MR PRINSLOO: But had you done something that would justify his shooting you?
MR HOLDER: Well I was wearing a balaclava and brown clothing.
MR PRINSLOO: When you entered with the brown clothing and the balaclava did you foresee that this plan which De Meillon had would be carried into effect?
MR HOLDER: I just foresaw that there were big problems.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you foresee his carrying his planning to effect?
MR HOLDER: Yes I did foresee that.
MR PRINSLOO: You then went to Swart. Your concentration was on Swart?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: So you don't know what was happening behind you?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And you said that you then heard a shot?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: You don't know who fired the shot?
MR HOLDER: No I don't know.
MR PRINSLOO: Was the light still on?
MR HOLDER: During the struggle the light went out.
MR PRINSLOO: Did the shot go off before or after the lights went out?
MR HOLDER: Just after the light went out.
MR PRINSLOO: After the light went out the shot went off?
MR HOLDER: I can't remember correctly.
MR PRINSLOO: So you can't say from where the shot came?
MR HOLDER: As I said I don't know who fired it.
MR PRINSLOO: Your co-applicant says that there were three shots and Mr de Meillon says this as well.
MR HOLDER: I heard one shot.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you argue that there could have been three shots?
MR HOLDER: It could have been so.
MR PRINSLOO: And according to a ballistics report which was submitted to the Committee, a police report, it says that a .38 shell was found. Would you argue that anything like this was found?
MR HOLDER: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Why?
MR HOLDER: Because when I appeared in court the day that my and Mr de Meillon's cases were divided, the officer came with a bag with the bullet points and he said that it came from my firearm and it's impossible because it's too small. They ask that the court adjourn for lunch, after the lunch break we returned. Mr de Meillon pleaded guilty for murder and robbery, the case was divided.
MR PRINSLOO: And a .38 round is smaller than a 9 mm?
MR HOLDER: No, I said a 9 mm. was smaller than a .38.
MR PRINSLOO: And you said that this was a flattened bullet point?
MR HOLDER: No it was a small sharp point.
MR PRINSLOO: And you therefore argue that which the ballistic expert said in the police report?
MR HOLDER: As I've said in court they didn't show me a .38 point, they showed me a 9 mm point and said that this was the bullet which I had fired.
MR PRINSLOO: If you look at the bullet point of a .38 and compare it with a 9 mm you will see that they are the same size?
MR HOLDER: No they are not.
MR PRINSLOO: So the prosecutor was the one that came to you, not the legal representative? He showed you a bullet point and said that this comes from your weapon?
MR HOLDER: That's what he did. My advocate and Mr de Meillon's advocate were standing there with him.
MR PRINSLOO: And according to Mr de Meillon's evidence he said that he had a 9 mm and that the deceased had a 9 mm as well as Mr Swart and that you had a .38?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: So if a .38 had been found there it would only have been yours.
MR HOLDER: If a .38 had actually been found there it would have been mine.
MR PRINSLOO: So what did you want to go and see in this guardhouse.
MR HOLDER: I was under command of Mr de Meillon, I assumed that we would go and see how many guards there were and whether they were there or not.
MR PRINSLOO: And if they were there or if they weren't there, what would happen then?
MR HOLDER: Well according to my knowledge of military bases there are always guards and one can never be sure of how many there are at a given time.
MR PRINSLOO: So there are always guards?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: So whether it's that day or the next day, it would be exactly the same?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: How old were you at that stage?
MR HOLDER: I was 36 years old.
MR PRINSLOO: And Mr de Meillon had just turned 21?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And your co-applicant is also older than Mr de Meillon? He's closer to your age?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And you didn't belong to the same organisation so you couldn't have fallen under his command?
MR HOLDER: As I have already said sometimes the AWB and the BWB had to co-operate and I'm assuming that the person with the highest rank would then take up command.
MR PRINSLOO: You've stated that you'd met Mr de Meillon on that day?
MR HOLDER: No, I stated that I'd met him two weeks earlier.
MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, did you just meet him fleetingly?
MR HOLDER: No we attended a meeting at Mr van Schalkwyk's house at which Mr de Meillon was also present.
MR PRINSLOO: And did he act normally that day?
MR HOLDER: Yes he did.
MR PRINSLOO: On that particular day in Pretoria did he behave normally?
MR HOLDER: Yes until we reached Pretoria and Devon he did and then in Pretoria he said he wanted to take the weapons from the guards.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, so why do you say that that's fanatical?
MR HOLDER: I didn't say that, I said that afterwards I realised that the man was fanatical.
MR PRINSLOO: But upon what do you base your definition of him as fanatical?
MR HOLDER: Well with regard to the evidence that's he's just delivered during which he said that he was disappointed in the fact that that which was planned for that day had not worked and from that I could see he was fanatical.
MR PRINSLOO: So what you're saying is that at stage you believed in a war, you believed in the protection of Volkstaat?
MR HOLDER: No, I didn't say that I believed in a war.
MR PRINSLOO: So you didn't believe in violence at all?
MR HOLDER: I didn't say that either.
MR PRINSLOO: You wouldn't have used violence at any time, so what did you need the weapons for, could you please tell the Committee?
MR HOLDER: We created safe houses in which we would protect our women and children and that is what we needed the weapons for.
MR PRINSLOO: So you would not have reconciled yourself with the idea of a Volkstaat, obtaining a Volkstaat?
MR HOLDER: I reconciled myself with the obtaining of a Volkstaat but not with violence.
MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Mr van Schalkwyk?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Mr Holder, did you ever consider lodging an appeal against your sentence?
MR HOLDER: Yes I did consider this.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you proceed with your appeal?
MR HOLDER: My former legal representative dissuaded me from continuing with the appeal.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you agree with the judgement of the judge in the case in which you were found guilty?
MR HOLDER: Yes I identified myself with the judgment of the court.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you agree with the judgement of the court?
MR HOLDER: Yes I agree with the court that I was involved in the death of Mr Terblanche.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you read the judgement of the court, did you read it personally?
MR HOLDER: Mr Kotze read the judgement to me.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you agree with the judges judgement as put out in the essential facts?
MR HOLDER: Well I can't remember all the facts right now.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are there specific facts which the judge found with which you did not agree?
MR HOLDER: If you could read these facts to me I could listen to it once more and then inform you.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: We will come to that shortly. Did you fill in form 1 of your amnesty application yourself? I'm referring to page 16, 17 and 18.
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you initial the page in order to indicate your agreement with what is contained thereon?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Paragraph 8(b), why didn't you fill in that you had undergone military training?
MR HOLDER: We filled in this application form together, Mr Kotze and myself and we did not answer all the questions here, we provided answers to this on other pages and documents which we formulated.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But I asked you whether or not you just filled this form in yourself, why didn't you indicate you military training?
MR HOLDER: With the rest of my application I did indicate my military training.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is it correct that you made an additional statement, page 43, 44, 45 of this application?
MR HOLDER: Yes that's correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: On which date was the second supplementary affidavit made?
MR HOLDER: I beg your pardon?
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: On which date did you make this second supplementary affidavit?
MR HOLDER: The 6th June 1998.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Your legal representative has during the process made certain amendments with regard to a certain paragraph. Why were these amendments not made during your supplementary affidavit when you had the opportunity?
MR HOLDER: Because I did not have the entire amnesty application with me, only this portion of it was faxed to me.
My wife brought it to me and I took the oath at prison and it was sent back.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that the changes brought about by your legal representative on behalf of you are facts which would have been known to you before you made these changes?
MR HOLDER: I saw this on Monday.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I also put it to you that these amendments were made in order to adjust to the other applications of the other applicants?
MR HOLDER: That is not true.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You have just testified that you did not have all the documents at your disposal?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you are trying to tell us is that you made these amendments based upon the fact that you had perused all the documents?
MR HOLDER: No, we saw that it was not correct on Monday when we consulted with Mr Kotze.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you're actually telling us is that when you made the first affidavit there was an oversight according to which you did not see that there were certain errors?
MR HOLDER: My amnesty application was handled by attorneys, Mr Grobbelaar who handled my case in court. During 1996 when Mr Nelson Mandela announced the extension of the cut-off date set up this application a few days before the cut off date, a few days before the cut off date for amnesty applications my wife approached Mr Kotze, to undertake this thing with which Mr Grobbelaar had not done anything at that stage. So, this was compiled during a very brief time, it was typed and Mr Kotze's secretary brought the document, we perused it and initialled it and that Friday afternoon it was placed on an aeroplane to Cape Town so that it could reach Cape Town before the cut off date on that Saturday.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I refer you to paragraph 17, an amendment was brought about there from army bases to army headquarters and this was initialled by yourself and the Commissioner of Oaths?
MR HOLDER: What page is that?
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Page 25, paragraph 17.
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you rectified this one error. Why didn't you rectify the other errors at this stage in the same fashion that you had rectified this particular error?
MR HOLDER: Well I didn't notice it on that day.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is it correct for us to say that you perused the paragraphs, saw this one error but did not pick up the incorrect set up of the essential facts pertaining to this case?
MR HOLDER: Yes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But is it not these facts which formed the basis of your application which are of cardinal importance to you?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you realise that this was taken before a Commissioner of Oaths?
MR HOLDER: Yes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you further confirm that the second affidavit is also a proper affidavit which was taken in front of a Commissioner of Oaths?
MR HOLDER: Yes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir I put it to you that your cardinal evidence was changed at a very later stage, why did you do that?
MR HOLDER: As I've already told you I did not notice it, I did not notice it that day that I initialled the documents. You must realise that these things were undertaken on the 9th and applications closed on the 10th and my nerves were not in their best state on that day.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, would you regard the first applicant, Mr de Meillon, as a confidante or a friend of yours?
MR HOLDER: Excuse me?
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Would you regard the first applicant, Mr de Meillon, as a confidante or a friend of yours?
MR HOLDER: I would describe him as an acquaintance.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you wouldn't really describe him as a friend of yours?
MR HOLDER: No I wouldn't.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You heard Mr de Meillon's evidence. Do you believe that he has been open and honest regarding everything?
MR HOLDER: No I don't believe so.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In which regard has he not been open and honest?
MR HOLDER: I think he is trying to protect certain people.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: With regard to the events according to which he said that you were in the building with a firearm, do you differ from him?
MR HOLDER: Yes I do.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In which regard?
MR HOLDER: I did not have a firearm in my hand.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Where was your firearm according to you when you entered the building?
MR HOLDER: In the side pocket of my brown trousers.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Can you explain then why Mr de Meillon would present a lie to us?
MR HOLDER: I can't explain that.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: When you looked through the window did you see that there were SAP members in the building?
MR HOLDER: I saw that there were white people inside the building.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At that stage did you see the uniforms of these people?
MR HOLDER: I saw the uniforms when I entered the room.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you think it is justified to shoot a policeman dead for the sake of his 9 mm pistol?
MR HOLDER: No I don't think so.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you think that any political organisation could account for itself by saying that it is justified to shoot one policeman in order to gain one 9 mm firearm?
MR HOLDER: No.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did Mr de Meillon at any stage when he was with you give an indication that he did not undertake reconnaissance of this base before the time?
MR HOLDER: No he did not.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Emanating from the discussion where you, Van Schalkwyk an De Meillon were present would you say that he would have said so if he had not undertaken reconnaissance of the area at that stage?
MR PRINSLOO: I must lodge an objection here, he cannot ask the applicant what a reasonable person would have done in that situation, it is a speculative question.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Let me rephrase my question. If you had been Mr de Meillon at that stage and he testified today that since his military service he had never again entered that base would you have made it known to any other person that during that time you had never been there?
MR HOLDER: If he had informed me of this I would not have gone with.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did Mr de Meillon have the opportunity to disclose that he had not undertaken reconnaissance shortly before this incident?
MR HOLDER: I think that he had the opportunity, yes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In as far as you were concerned were you ever aware or under the impression that you would be stealing personal weapons from people?
MR HOLDER: No.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You've said that you want forgiveness for the incident, is that correct?
MR HOLDER: Yes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: How have you expressed this forgiveness or indicated this forgiveness to the family of the person who was killed?
MR HOLDER: I have had no contact with the family of the person who was killed.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But if somebody says that they are sorry you could have sent them a card, a gift, flowers or something similar during the funeral, but you didn't do anything like that?
MR HOLDER: No I didn't.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that if in fact you had shown real remorse you would have approached the family some or other way and indicated your remorse through this?
MR HOLDER: I can only say that if someone - if I had been in the same position, if someone had killed one of my family members I'm sure if I would be able to forgive them.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir were you ever in a position where you could have testified against some of your co-accused?
MR HOLDER: No Sir.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were you ever approached by Inspector Nel to testify against Mr de Meillon?
MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you ever offer to testify against him in the court case in the criminal court?
MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: If you ever had remorse about a situation which you wish to defuse yourself, why didn't you go and testify against the person who had committed the murder?
MR HOLDER: Nobody had asked me to testify against him so I assumed that there was adequate evidence against each and every one of us.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But you were in a position where you could have testified against him or could have offered to testify?
MR HOLDER: Mr de Meillon pleaded guilty to the charge so it wasn't necessary to testify against him.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I state it to you that he had only pleaded guilty after Constable Swart had testified?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Constable Swart's testimony had been led.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Could we therefore deduce that he had first looked whether or wanted to see whether there was enough evidence against him before he turned around and pleaded guilty?
MR HOLDER: I wouldn't know Mr Chair.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, a person who feels remorse and who wishes to plead guilty does so from the beginning, he doesn't wait until the State had called for the chief witness and the chief witness's testimony had been accepted by the court and then turn around and then plead not guilty?
MR KOTZE: Well I think this is a legal argument about how people who feel remorse would have acted and Mr Holder, who clearly doesn't have knowledge of legal processes and to ask him about why Mr de Meillon and his legal team had acted in a certain way I think is unreasonable.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I will leave it at that, I will not take it any further.
You yourself did not plead guilty initially?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At which stage did you plead guilty?
MR HOLDER: During my court case I did not plead guilty.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And ultimately you were found guilty, is that correct?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: As a person who is telling us that you are remorseful why didn't you plead guilty from the beginning?
MR HOLDER: Upon the advice from my legal team I pleaded not guilty. I felt that I myself did not pull the trigger that killed the victim. As an accomplice I would have pleaded guilty.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What sort of vehicle did you use to travel to Pretoria?
MR HOLDER: I did not use my vehicle, Mr van Zyl used his vehicle.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What sort of vehicle was that?
MR HOLDER: It was a three litre Ford.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that it is improbable that you would have had enough time to travel to Pretoria and back in the time available to you?
MR HOLDER: We were in Pretoria.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: This action beforehand where you had done exercises in the protection of vehicles which you have given evidence about, was that undertaken in order to attack vehicles as well or only to protect vehicle convoys?
MR HOLDER: Only for the protection of vehicle convoys.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you undergo any training in the period prior to the incident in attacking places or arsenals or the disarming of people?
MR HOLDER: No.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Was your training strictly defensive?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are you going to call Mr van Zyl to testify on your behalf?
MR HOLDER: No.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why not?
MR HOLDER: He has been informed that his name will not be mentioned and he is not present.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you have any other evidence with regard to your participation in right-wing politics, any information which can prove this participation and involvement in right-wing politics other than your attendance of meetings of these organisations?
MR HOLDER: I believed that there are people who will testify that I was indeed a member of the AWB.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that all of those who were present at these meetings were necessarily AWB members and did not necessarily share the sentiments of the AWB?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, as I've already said the first part of the meeting would be an open meeting and after that it would be a closed meeting.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I'm taking you to page 59, the list of supplies which you had to keep ready in the event of a war. I put it to you that page 57 and 58 form a unit and that page 59 is a separate report?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, if I peruse it.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And I put it to you that it is highly improbable that a town council would issue a report such as that which appears on page 59 and place it in people's post boxes.
MR HOLDER: These were all found in our post boxes which were all at a central location, that is where we obtained it.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you're saying is that - can you say with certainty whether these guidelines were distributed by the town council, both sets? Is it only page 59 or page 57?
MR HOLDER: I wouldn't be able to say.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So in effect you're saying that these guidelines could have been distributed by somebody else or somebody else with access to the town council or the post office?
MR HOLDER: It must have been someone from the post office or the town council, that is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The person whom you married, are those your own children?
MR HOLDER: I beg your pardon?
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You were married during this process, the person whom you married, did you marry this person before or after the incident?
MR HOLDER: No I was married before the incident and these children are my own children.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you. I would just like to take you to Constable Swart's statement. Do you know about his statement which he made in court?
MR HOLDER: Yes I do know about it.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You agree with his evidence which he gave during the court proceedings?
MR HOLDER: No.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In what regard would you say that his evidence is incorrect?
MR HOLDER: I can't remember his statement explicitly because it was made two years ago and there are certain aspects of that statement with which I do not agree.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that he will make a statement during which he said that the words were never uttered that you were acting on behalf of a right-wing organisation. What do you say about that?
MR HOLDER: I said so just now, Mr de Meillon said "don't do anything stupid". I didn't hear him say that he was from a right-wing organisation.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Constable Swart goes further to say in his statement that it was never put to him or said to him that weapons would be taken from any person?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In both these statements is Mr de Meillon incorrect in saying that this happened?
MR HOLDER: I wouldn't know I was not with him in the room at that moment.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that it was a very small room and that you stood at the open door and if this had been said you would have heard it?
MR HOLDER: No, as I have already testified, I stood by the window when I saw Mr de Meillon go in and upon that I followed him.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would just like to pick that up, the political deed, do you have any evidence that the political organisation you allege you belonged to had given approval for the killing of policemen?
MR HOLDER: No I don't have, Mr Chair.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you feel that is justified to kill a policeman for one firearm?
MR HOLDER: No it isn't justified.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In which respect could this deed have contributed to any political purpose or objective?
MR HOLDER: It couldn't have contributed, Mr Chair.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK
CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Steenkamp?
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibanyoni?
MR SIBANYONI: No questions thank you Mr Chairperson.
ADV GCABASHE: Mr Holder, there is one aspect I'd like to clarify with you. You talked about the request or a request being equated to an instruction, you equated requests with instructions if they came from a commander, is that what you're saying? Am I right?
MR HOLDER: That's right.
ADV GCABASHE: But did you consider Mr de Meillon to be your commander?
MR HOLDER: During the evening of the event, yes that is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: Now I know that the detail of where you were going to or the broad terms rather, where you were going to you got from Mr van Schalkwyk. I'm trying to find out who gave you the instruction, was it Mr de Meillon, Mr van Schalkwyk or if there were two instructions, just clarify that for me because both of them seemed to have had an influence on what you did?
MR HOLDER: I was given the instruction by Mr van Schalkwyk, Mr Chair.
ADV GCABASHE: Could you have refused to go with Mr de Meillon?
MR HOLDER: I saw my involvement with the AWB as the same as the then defence force, in other words if a higher ranking officer gave an instruction you carried it out.
ADV GCABASHE: And in this instance the high ranking officer was Mr van Schalkwyk?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: There are actually a couple of more areas that I have notes on here. Coming to the guardhouse you were at the window then you went to the door. Did the struggle start when you were at the window, when you were at the door or when you had already walked into the room?
MR HOLDER: When I walked into the room the struggle started, ja.
ADV GCABASHE: That's the struggle between Mr de Meillon and the deceased?
MR HOLDER: That's right.
ADV GCABASHE: You had walked in already?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: I understood you to say that you walked into the room because you saw Mr Swart pull his firearm?
MR HOLDER: No.
ADV GCABASHE: Correct me?
MR HOLDER: I walked into the room when I saw Mr de Meillon go in then I followed him into the room.
ADV GCABASHE: Yes, at what point did you observe Mr Swart pulling his firearm?
MR HOLDER: As I entered the room the deceased jumped up and he and Mr de Meillon were struggling then I saw Mr de Swart pulling his firearm.
ADV GCABASHE: You see again I'm trying to understand, when you walked into the room you were going in to separate De Meillon and Terblanche or whether you walked in because at that point you observed Mr Swart pull his firearm and that's where you were headed, I'm not too sure, just help me with that?
MR HOLDER: His firearm wasn't pulled yet, he was busy pulling it when I came into the room and Mr - the deceased jumped up and struggled with Mr de Meillon then I went to ...(intervention)
ADV GCABASHE: You went straight to Mr Swart?
MR HOLDER: That's right.
ADV GCABASHE: And then finally, I have to come back to where you were supposed to find these arms, again it's a note that I had made. When you were told about these arms that Mr de Meillon knew about, that were in various places, were you told that they were from the Government, they were Government arms, were you told that there was a camp where certain people were and I had assumed and I read the documents that it would either be the ANC or the SACP where they had these illegal arms? Whose arms were you going to take in terms of structures, political structures?
MR HOLDER: I believed at that stage that these firearms were PAC or SACP or ANC or any one of those groups.
ADV GCABASHE: And the premises that you were headed for as far as you knew was a camp where these particular people were holding these illegal arms as far as you were concerned?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, or a house or a location or something like that.
ADV GCABASHE: It had nothing to do with the government of the day?
MR HOLDER: No.
ADV GCABASHE: Or any declaration of war against the government of the day?
MR HOLDER: No.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kotze any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOTZE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
And when you had taken these weapons do you still say that these weapons would then be used for protection of the safe houses with the people you have already mentioned?
MR HOLDER: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR KOTZE: And did you believe at that stage that it was a political and military order?
MR HOLDER: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: Mr Holder, you had been questioned regarding the finding of the judge as to where you agree and you don't agree. Part of his finding was that you and Mr van Zyl and Mr de Meillon on that particular evening didn't go to Pretoria at all. What is your attitude about that?
MR HOLDER: I still agree with the finding of the Judge, but we were in Pretoria, I know we were there.
MR KOTZE: Then it was also found that Mr Swart could have seen your blue eyes through a vest, what is your opinion about that?
MR HOLDER: Well I don't believe Mr Swart could have seen my eyes.
MR KOTZE: You were also cross-questioned or questioned regarding Mr Swart's evidence during the trial and your comment was that there were certain aspects with which you didn't agree, a matter with regard to where your firearm was. Do you think Mr Swart would have been in a position to make an observation in this regard?
MR HOLDER: I don't know whether he could have made this observation because he was busy drawing his firearm, he was wasn't really looking at what was going on at the door.
MR KOTZE: You also remarked just now that this couldn't contribute to a political objective, if we now look at the isolated incident of the 23rd April, that sort of senseless killing of a police officer, is that what you're referring to?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: But the broader idea of trying to obtain firearms, do you believe that that could have a political influence?
MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, Mr Chair.
MR KOTZE: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOTZE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kotze.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I have one brief question if the Chairman will allow me to reply? On page 66 the judge says in his finding with regard to Swart the policeman, that he was an honest and impressive witness, do you agree with that?
MR HOLDER: I agree with what the judge had found.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is there any reason why you could believe that he was not an impressive and honest witness?
MR KOTZE: I have to object against this question.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think it is a well founded objection, he has replied to your question Mr van Schalkwyk.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Yes I'm satisfied that he has replied, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK
CHAIRPERSON: I see we've almost reached the end of the day. You have one client whose case you have to offer, I don't know whether you have any further testimony or evidence in this regard?
MR KOTZE: Mr Chairman, no further evidence on behalf of Mr Holder.
CHAIRPERSON: So you conclude his application?
MR KOTZE: Yes I do conclude his application.
CHAIRPERSON: I think under those circumstances, time has caught up with us at any rate and we therefore will have the matter stand over. We'll adjourn this application until tomorrow and we will reconvene at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. So we are adjourned.
WITNESS EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
